Movie notes: ‘Resident Evil’ No. 1 — with an asterisk

Of course, that was a foregone conclusion, since it was the only mainstream film opening last Friday, meaning its competition for No. 1 consisted of a bunch of flagging late-summer holdovers. So it’s a bit like bragging abut winning the 100-meter dash with a 50-meter head start.

At first glance, the fourth film in the franchise seemed to post impressive numbers that justified the studio’s decision not to screen it in advance for critics. “Afterlife” earned $26.7 million last weekend, the franchise’s best opening to date. It bested the $23.7 million of the third film, “Extinction.”

However, there’s an important caveat, and film buffs already know what it is — 3-D. The premium prices theaters charge for 3-D made this summer look better (much better) than it actually was, and the same goes for “Afterlife.” Fewer people went to see “Afterlife” opening weekend than any of the franchise’s other films, analyst Brandon Gray of BoxOfficeMojo.com points out. Like the summer totals, 3-D inflated “Afterlife’s” numbers, mainly because a whopping 84 percent of the total came from 3-D screenings.

That appears to be exactly what the studio had planned, Gray added about the still-respectable totals.

“Still, to have the fourth movie be in the same league as its predecessors speaks to the franchise’s consistent appeal, and the marketing mostly relied on that appeal and 3D to sell the picture, offering nothing new in terms of story, character, action or visuals.”

Add in a cliffhanger ending to “Afterlife,” and it’s obvious we’re not done with the franchise just yet.

Normally, at this point, I’d throw in my usual “can’t hurt/might help” mantra about whether or not to screen so-called “niche” films. But in this case, I think I’ll save the keystrokes. It’s hard to imagine anyone who has already made an emotional and financial investment in the “Resident Evil” franchise wouldn’t go see “Afterlife.” And why would anyone who hasn’t seen any of the films want to start now?

The critics’ response certainly backs up the no-show decision. After starting out with a zero on the Tomatometer, “Afterlife” has risen to the wholly uninteresting score of 22. That’s pretty terrible, but not hall-of-fame terrible like “Furry Vengeance,” “The Last Airbender” and the rest of the 2010 single-digit crop.

Most of the “Fresh” (i.e., favorable) reviews fall in the damning-with-faint-praise category. There’s one big, big exception, and you can probably guess who it is.

Praising director Paul W.S. Anderson (whom most critics regard as one of the worst directors making mainstream movies today) for his “his astonishing gift for imagery and frighteningly good action craft,” Armond White of the alternative weekly the New York Press adds:

“If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, ‘Afterlife’ would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to ‘Inception’ and ‘Avatar’ on every level.”